Words Eye View

Dems Admit Obama’s Not Eligible

Written by Doug Book - The Western Center for Journalism

Weary of defending in court the Constitutional eligibility of their man at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the Democrat Party has finally admitted Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States– and that it doesn’t matter.

According to a motion filed by Party attorneys in a Tennessee eligibility lawsuit, “…Defendants [the Tennessee Democrat Party and the Democrat National Committee] assert that the Tennessee Democrat Party has the right to nominate whoever it chooses to run as a candidate, including someone who is not qualified for the office.”

In numerous previous lawsuits questioning the Constitutional eligibility of Barack Hussein Obama, Democrats have maintained that voters, not the Constitution, should be the final arbiters of presidential eligibility. Though a disgraceful assertion on its face, such mindless rambling was about all that desperate Democrat attorneys had in their arsenals, apart from the perpetually employed “plaintiffs lack standing” defense.

But now, the cat is out of the bag, and the true sentiments of Democrat Party officials have finally been aired. It seems that, according to the left, as long as the acting president has the requisite contempt for the United States, is willing to work tirelessly to destroy the national economy, and will ignore both the rule of law and his Constitutional duty to enforce it, he is eminently qualified to hold the country’s top job.

In February, Georgia Administrative Judge Michael Malihi ignored Supreme Court precedent, made a shambles of case law, and distorted the rulings of other courts in a pathetically obvious mission to find Barack Obama eligible for the Georgia presidential ballot.

Although the first judge to decide an Obama eligibility case on the merits, his contempt for an honest judicial process certainly did nothing to mend the rapidly deteriorating reputation of the American legal system.

On Wednesday, United States District Judge S. Thomas Anderson joined a long list of robed colleagues, ruling that plaintiffs in the Tennessee case “lacked standing” to point out Obama’s Constitutional ineligibility for the presidency. That is, plaintiffs could not claim sufficient personal harm should the Manchurian Candidate remain in or be re-elected to the White House.

Strange how the law works. After 3 ½ years of cynical disregard for the borders, language, and culture of the United States, one would think that some 240 million people have suffered “sufficient personal harm” to claim legal standing for a crack at His Royal Highness in a court of law! There are only 30 million illegals currently residing in the United States, and those the Attorney General refers to as “his people” might actually lack legal standing in the eyes of an honest arbiter.

At any rate, Democrats have finally admitted what the rest of us have known for quite some time. Barack Obama is NOT qualified to hold the job won for him by the national media in 2008. But it seems only the voters will have the authority to reclaim it from him. God willing, the vast majority who exercise that authority in November will be both American and alive.

This thread began with Dr. Dixon reporting the DNC acknowleged in court that Obama was not constitutionally eligible to hold the office of president. Panocha attacked Dr. Dixon as a "know nothing" about law. Panocha does not know Dr. Dixon was a founder of the Biblical Law Center. The chief attorney is Jerald Finney, licensed in Texas (He gave me his license #, unlike certain noisy apes haunting these pages without truly identifying themselves.) Some, like Pure Trust and George Voit have been civil and thoughtful in expressing themselves, pro and con. Others, like AntiAcidNo1, bayag, panocha, and J. Vanderville, repeatedly behave like howler monkeys in hysteria. These sorts do not speak with discipline and caution normally found among lawyers, nor do they ever give any verifiable documentation about their legal credentials. They make great claims in boasting, but give nothing of substance that Foghorn Leghorn can't match. They won't even step out from behind their aliases, like the many minimum wage trolls the federal government fills boiler rooms with to harrass internet commenters. I identified myself, David McElroy, only to have my name mocked. I don't hide. Attorney Jerald Finney, an author of books, has a website at www.churchandstatelaw.com if you need to see the caliber of work Dr. Dixon's Biblical Law Center is doing. Stop telling people like me and Pure Trust to "shut up". You do nothing for the freedom of speech nor do you offer anything of substance to the issues you are so vociferously claiming expertise in. You simply try to stifle discussion. I'll bet I've sat thru more federal trials than you have! There is no reason to believe you at all.

Comment by Ed Price

Entered on: 9/14/2012 2:06:36 PM

Our military couldn't! They wouldn't! Start Drone Wars with Kenya after Obama, and Bernanke, and Romney were deported there! They wouldn't do such a thing on that poor, little country, would they? I mean, the deportations would be bad enough!

Comment by Ed Price

Entered on: 9/14/2012 2:01:41 PM

Why not Bernanke and Romney along with him?

Comment by Ed Price

Entered on: 9/14/2012 1:58:01 PM

That's easy. Send him back to Kenya. Good relations with Kenya isn't something that is of vital importance to the United States, is it?

Comment by Ed Price

Entered on: 9/14/2012 1:34:39 PM

Thanks, guys. It's about time some of you lawyer types start popularizing an important letter/article like this one. Please bring as many of your knowledgeable lawyer friends and accomplices... I mean acquaintances... into this discussion as possible, so that it blows the Freedom's Phoenix Forum wide open for EVERYONE IN THE WHOLE WORLD TO SEE. Then we just might get something done about that IMPOSTER in Washington.

Comment by Arty Choke

Entered on: 9/14/2012 9:22:47 AM

Going back to my comment of shifting the blame back to the people, correct me if I am wrong, but what I have just explained is the “bone and flesh” of this LEGAL INHIBITION [Doctrine of Political Question] on the court’s jurisdiction that still vibrates in my mind at first blush since this was posed years back as a “BAR” question that I have to pass to become a full-fledge attorney!

Comment by Ana Panot

Entered on: 9/14/2012 9:05:26 AM

We have something going on here. Now I am glad knowledgeable lawyers are talking. But don’t forget who brought up this important discussion – JV in his comment below reminding “the people” of the last chance to rectify their error of previously “electing” Obama.
Don’t forget also that Dixon and his rah-rah boys who know nothing about LAW, are going to learn something out of this discussion if they just keep quiet, listen and learn what they awfully missed in life – learn something that could fill up the void of their life [that empty space of ignorance in their life].

Comment by Arty Choke

Entered on: 9/14/2012 8:47:42 AM

Looking at this legal principle adhered to by the courts of law, at first blush, meaning without resort to citing political question cases to back up what I am about to say, I recall that under this Doctrine the “blame” is shifted back “to the people” for “electing” a candidate without first determining whether or not under the Constitution and pursuant to the requirements of the governing law of suffrage the candidate is “qualified” to run for a high public office. Once the voice of the people has spoken in error [electing a non-qualified candidate], no court of the land can try and sentence “the people” for that “error” they committed.

Comment by Richard Harding

Entered on: 9/14/2012 8:15:26 AM

Attaboy !… Atty. Voit! Let’s get rid of those “ignorant” kibitzers who occupy this space with their suffocating ignorance of law.

To McElchap and PureTrust: We are losing the issue because of your stupid intervention – you are always so noisy with your nonsense.

Go to the corner, sit down, zip your mouth shut and listen to this important debate and learn something. You are not qualified to discuss this matter, therefore sad for me to say that this is “off-limit” to you – I mean, you can be a disgusting intruder if you want that we honestly do not want.

So once again I say to you – You are not attorneys-at-law and our readers look down at you not as lawyers but space lawters [also spelled “looters”]. Get out of here! This issue is for lawyers to tackle, not for lowballs … not for your low-yells nobody wants to hear!

Let’s clear this space and put it to good use. After this, you can shit on this space again for as long as you want and for as long as you make editor Powell Gammill happy hearing the flushing sound of the toilet bowl!

Comment by George Voit

Entered on: 9/14/2012 7:43:15 AM

This topic for discussion is so important – it could be the bottom line of Obama’s end in office.

This is an area of LEGAL examination among bona fide LAWYERS, especially attorneys practicing law in this field of specialization.

You see if Obama had violated the Constitution, there is a possibility that he could be prosecuted when HE IS NO LONGER President. But the critical issue of the “Doctrine of Political Questions” that brilliant legal minds like JV had brought up I agree, is the fly in the ointment in American jurisprudence.

In my years of practice of law, I learned that bright attorneys battle Judges when the latter shies away from taking jurisdiction over political cases because of this Doctrine. I have yet to handle a case involving a “Political Question”.

I want to know the opinions of my colleagues in the legal profession on this issue that JV had brought up.

So please, if you are not one of those lawyers who specialize on this issue, can you step aside just for a brief moment and give this space to them – just for once as an exception, in difference to the IMPORTANCE of this LEGAL “bone of contention” so critical to the future of this country?

Comment by Ed Price

Entered on: 9/13/2012 11:54:12 AM

We really shouldn't be so hard on brag. Let's assume, for a moment, that he is telling the truth when he says that he is a lawyer. Lawyering can be very difficult at times. Just ask Mr. Marc Victor. (Please forgive me, Mr. Victor, for using your name in the same writing along with brag.)

I mean, just look at all those ways that Mr. Victor is constantly helping individual people to fight Government and big business corruption. And, now, he is running for the Senate so that he can do his part to champion liberty and libertarianism in America.

When brag works with his clients, there probably is a lot of stress involved. It is extremely stressful for him, because a lawyer with such an unprofessional potty mouth as he has, must watch himself every minute, so that he doesn't step over the line and wander out of professionalism with his client. It could lose him some business. It might even cost him is reputation in the lawyer field.

On top of that, brag's lawyer job is exceptionally stressful. After all, brag is a person. And a person who is constantly taking advantage of the suffering of his clients like brag does, becomes extremely worn out, emotionally, with all those emotions of sympathy and greed warring inside his head. It wears on him after awhile.

Freedom's Phoenix is a place where brag can relax, and get a little stress relief. He can let it all out, and he doesn't have to be professional about it, because most people in here don't know who he is. Whereas he has to force his Jekyll half to rule in the office, here he can let his Hyde half out into the open.

Yet, in the FP forum, his Jekyll half doesn't completely disappear. You can tell, by how many things he supports that are in favor of screwing the people. He's probably even related to some of the banksters of Jekyll Island, and just uses the name brag to Hyde behind.

Comment by David McElroy

Entered on: 9/13/2012 10:46:52 AM

So, Brag in #045216 I see you failed to respond to my challenge to give us your legal credentials which you brag about so loudly. A real member of the British Accredited Registry would not hesitate to present them. Your boastful, insulting language is not that of a mind trained in law. In your arrogance, you say knowledge of the law as taught to you is "off limits" to people like me. Of course it is, because the law, as you were taught, is all about perpetrating fraud with some of the most twisted logic expressed in the most deceitful language is used by both judges and attorneys to lie, cheat, and steal under the auspices of the state. I have studied these matters, and spent a few hours in law libraries myself. If you think I would ever respect a jack-booted statist propaganda enforcer like you or JV, you are mistaken. My mind pukes at the very thought of what you pedal so arrogantly. You should repent for your sins against God and man and seek Christ.

Comment by Boston Releigh

Entered on: 9/13/2012 10:08:23 AM

To MaxLaugh I mean Maclap –You want me to teach you anything about Law. If I educate you what in Law the Doctrine of Political Question means, you get a free ride out of my eight years in law school to get a JD.

Now, why do you think I will give that to you, birdbrain?

If you expect me to give that to you, it shows that your brain is really no larger than that of a pea,

If you deserve such magnanimous charity, I will do it, but you don’t deserve it. I will definitely do it to others, but not to you. You have to go to law school and get yourself an education in Law, before you intrude into my area of discipline which is off-limit to you and your kind … get it?

But I think you are now using a cane when you walk, which means you are TOO OLD to go to school and study Law.

Besides, if I give it to you free, your mental receptacle is not large enough to receive the size of this Doctrine.

And even it if we force it to fit within the limited space of your brain, your brain is not tough enough compared to the strong mind of a lawyer like me …yours is too weak to digest anything about Law.

I already told you in my comment below to quit this page … go home to where you came from and plant corns and potatoes because here you are useless …not even a speck in the eye -- just an eyesore.

Comment by David McElroy

Entered on: 9/13/2012 8:32:25 AM

Hey, Brag! Again you Vanderville aliases brag about your legal credentials while offering nothing more than an odoriferous hot air, being full of beans. You speak vaguely making great claims while NEVER giving specific chapter and verse from any law book. You merely attempt to assassinate characters of those who criticize your many split personalities and shout them down like a spoiled child. You claim that the "Checks & Balances" of the US Constitution are without any consequence, that the major structures of the law are over-ridden by smaller details you never list. If any of you insulting harlequins are actually lawyers, I challenge you to publish here in FP the names of the law schools which gave you diplomas, with graduation dates, and the states which licensed you to practice law, with your law license numbers. Of course, you might shame your alma maters in doing so. Shut up, or put up!

Comment by Boston Releigh

Entered on: 9/12/2012 9:00:41 PM

MACLAP, you have no idea what in Law the “Doctrine of Political Question” means which the Court would shy away from taking jurisdiction. I understand what JV was talking about because like him I am also a lawyer. JV explained this legal doctrine clearly which resonates in the ears of lawyers. If you know nothing what he is talking about, it is better for you to just stay away from it.

I am just making this friendly suggestion to you because you are obviously an ignoramus to what JV was talking about that probably right now he is folding over laughing at the pit of his stomach while reading your ignorant comment.

To avoid yourself being ridiculed, I suggest you keep out of it because what you learned from “Civic Classes” is not what lawyers learn from the school of law which is off-limit to you and to Pastors that fool their congregation preaching their understanding of “law” as if it a passage in the Bible.

I read also JV’s comments on the writings of Greg J. Dixon in articles this Pastor published just recently next to this one. Judging from his shallow and small-minded writings, he looms as a large bungling religious militant whose anti-Government hatred is much deeper than the Mindanao Deep.

Okay, I don’t know how much you know him, how often do you lick his boots or how many times you kiss his behind every day, but this I know like how JV knows about him: He is addicted to collecting downer stories and publish them to attack Obama who represents the Government he hates.

The latest falsified story Dixon published here at FP.com was “Obama Takes Bibles From America’s Wounded Soldiers” which he did not verify the source and it turned out to be FALSE.
http://www.freedomsphoenix.com/Discussion-

He also published an article suggesting the CASTRATION of the Ministers of God at the day of their ordination – a macabre solution to child molestation in Christian churches because in his small mind even the Bible is a book of sin. I don’t know how did he become a Pastor and put his believers in a serious moral jeopardy.

What kind of a Lilliputian mentality this Pastor have that you respect and admire? But of course you can only admire your kind … birds of the same feathers flock together.

And you have the gall to take issues on legal matters with an intellectual giant like JV and call him dirty names? What kind of a freak are you …

Judging from your miserable lack of foresight in doing what you are doing, I suspect that your brain is no larger than that of a pea. Why don’t you just stop making self-incriminatory comments and go home – it is no good for you to live in the city – you go back to the farm and plant corns and potatoes. That way you contribute something useful to society rather than make yourself an eyesore to society.

Comment by David McElroy

Entered on: 9/12/2012 6:50:32 PM

Hey, Vanderville!

I am personally acquainted with Dr. Dixon, and I doubt you are qualified to shine his shoes. He is doing great service for God and country you know nothing of.

Again, you show your true colors and agree with the DNC that while Obama is not constitutionally eligible, they got away with and nothing can be done. Hah! So, if I get away with defrauding you, JV, by your twisted logic, you would have no legal recourse. Wonderful! Then you admit you have no respect for the basic "Checks & Balances" among the three branches of government we were so often taught about in Civics classes. You say the court cannot touch upon the other two branches, so I guess you support a president ruling by executive orders unbridled by either Congress or the Courts. Yep, a perfect plan for fascist tyranny. How soon would you recommend Obama dissolve Congress, JV? You say it is "unfortunate" Obama is unchallenged. What is the court case in Tennessee? You claim to be an attorney, where was your challenge in court? You don't seem to realize the class of people you deal with in this forum, JV, and how you reveal yourself to be a fool every time you come to spew your boastful ignorance, poser!

Comment by Ed Price

Entered on: 9/12/2012 4:17:50 PM

Maxims of Law, properly used, are extremely powerful. In fact, they are virtually as powerful as the Constitution, in a different way.

Take a look at the Maxims of Law from Bouvier's Dictionary of Law, by John Bouvier, 1856. You can find it at http://famguardian.org/Publications/BouvierMaximsOfLaw/BouviersMaxims.htm.

If you are interest in taking the time, you can learn a great amount of standard law from these Legal Maxims. You might be able to find all kinds of reasons that would make simply removing Obama and his mess, the absolutely correct thing to do, legally.

Comment by Joseph Vanderville

Entered on: 9/12/2012 12:15:53 PM

HEAR ME WELL ON THIS…!

It’s too late to publish this problem now by a writer whose narrow-mindedness is abiotic of solution. He just enjoys publishing a downer.

Obama has already been elected by the people. In Law, the error is faux pas and it becomes what is known as the “Doctrine of Political Question” the Court cannot touch as a separate branch of government because a political question [the people’s choice of unqualified candidate over a qualified opponent/s] is outside of their constitutional jurisdiction. Only the people themselves can reverse their error of electing Obama who under the Constitution was not qualified to run for President of the United States.

But here is the good news: Obama is now running for “re-election”. His candidacy can now be challenged to disqualify him from running as candidate for President of the United States.

Unfortunately, I do not see any challenge of his candidacy going on now, with only a few days left before November election day. This one great opportunity is missed.

Still, the people has this LAST opportunity to remove him from the Oval Office by not voting for his “re-election”.

If still the people missed this LAST and FINAL opportunity to remove him from office by voting him down this coming November election, I don’t want to hear anymore anyone complaining that Obama is not qualified to be President of the United States. That comes from the mouth of a fool.

Mark what I said today, as your reference tomorrow. JV

Comment by David McElroy

Entered on: 9/12/2012 9:11:53 AM

This case where the DNC admits Obama is not constitutionally eligible should get far more media distribution. (Fat chance!) Also, recall how the official Oath of Office was administered without media witness in the White House after Justice Roberts and Obama flubbed it the first time at the inaugural event. Do we really know what sort of oath Obama pledged himself to? What were the exact words of that oath? Is this oath available for public scrutiny? Did he Obama pledge to rule in the interests of International Socialism like Lenin? Thank you, Dr. Dixon for this article on the Tennessee court ruling.

Comment by Ed Price

Entered on: 9/12/2012 7:41:03 AM

Poor Congress! It must be a very great weight. Consider the following items that weigh on the hearts and minds of the members of Congress:

A. Personal safety and well being;
B. Personal dynasty-building through their Government job;
C. Personal dynasty-building through the bribes and payoffs from big business;

If they happen to have a bit of a heart:

D. Worry about the morality of the country;
E. Personal appearance in the eyes of the people, especially if they are doing things that are corrupt on the side;
F. How to make things work together in their Government.

I was going to make a much bigger list. But I have other things to do, and you get the picture. Think of all the responsibilities and pressures on Congress. Members are pushed and pulled this way and that by all kinds of things, within and without. No wonder they can't (or don't want to) get organized enough to impeach the President for not being qualified.

Actually, impeachment is out of the question. After all, since he is NOT qualified to be President, he cannot be President. So, how do you impeach a non-President?

How do you pick up an imposter, and set him out on the street - or prosecute him in some way - without becoming the laughing stock at having the wool pulled over your eyes?

At best the members of Congress are all mixed up about how to act. At worst they are as corrupt as can be imagined, and are using the imposter as their puppet and scapegoat for personal wealth-building while in office.

Comment by Jim Fulner

Entered on: 9/12/2012 7:11:48 AM

having the right to be on the ballot has nothing to do with the constitutionality of the elected individual. The Socialist Workers Party has run non-citizens and folks under 35 for President/VP for ever election since 2000.